A Verdict on Travelgate

Published: October 20, 2000

The independent counsel Robert Ray has concluded that Hillary Rodham Clinton was ''factually false'' in sworn testimony about her role in the firing of seven members of the White House travel staff in 1993. At the same time he has concluded that he cannot prove beyond a reasonable doubt in court that her statements were ''knowingly false,'' and therefore will not pursue criminal charges against her. Judging from the voluminous public record, Mr. Ray's decision to drop the case is legally sound. Judging from the same record, his characterization of Mrs. Clinton's account of her role in the matter also seems on the mark.

Except for new detail, the report adds little of substance to the preliminary findings Mr. Ray released in June. Our main quarrel with Mr. Ray involves timing -- that is, the decision to release the report only three weeks before voters go to the polls to choose between Mrs. Clinton and Rick Lazio in a closely contested Senate race. Mr. Ray and his staff argue that three weeks is enough time for the public to digest and debate the report and that delivering it earlier would have been procedurally difficult. But as the decision not to prosecute was made months ago, they could and should have avoided dropping reports during the September-October campaign season. As a practical matter, however, the report is likely to have little direct impact, beyond feeding the unease of those who already have doubts about Mrs. Clinton.

As to Mrs. Clinton's truthfulness, the underlying issue is whether she had any ''input'' or played a ''role'' in the firings, which were themselves legally permissible. On at least two occasions, including sworn testimony to the independent counsel in 1995, she denied playing such a role -- a point made again this week by her lawyers, who said that while Mrs. Clinton had been concerned about financial improprieties in the travel office, she did not ''knowingly'' intend to influence the decision to fire the seven employees. Mr. Ray, although conceding that he could not prove a criminal case against Mrs. Clinton, clearly did not believe this account. He cited conversations and memorandums suggesting that the firings had occurred because White House aides understood that that was the outcome desired by a powerful and persistent first lady.

Mr. Ray has two tasks remaining. He must complete the final report on the Whitewater land deals, in which he has already found no grounds for bringing criminal charges against Mrs. Clinton or President Clinton. He has also said that once Mr. Clinton leaves office, he will decide whether to charge him with perjury or obstruction of justice in connection with testimony in the Paula Jones case and the grand jury investigation into the Lewinsky matter. Common sense and scholarly legal reflection should lead Mr. Ray to decide not to indict Mr. Clinton. That the president lied is clear, and that the matter was adequately dealt with through the impeachment process is equally clear. Prosecuting a former president for offenses that received full hearing and sufficient punishment in a Senate trial would set a bad precedent.